An Era of Darkness - The British Empire in India (Shashi Tharoor, 2016)

(291 pp)

The author argued during a speech at Oxford in 2015 that the British domination of India was deeply negative for India in pretty much every way.  The lecture ended up becoming very popular online - reportedly rapidly exceeding three million views on one site - and is now revised into book form.  Pretty clearly it struck a chord.  I know almost nothing of Indian politics but it sounds like a nationalist strain has emerged there in recent years (not equating this with nationalist strains elsewhere as I don't know if/how comparable) (Modi).

My untutored impression of the matter has always been that yes of course the Brits took advantage of the situation in India in various ways, and generally acted as racists - but that's sort of how things were done back then.  And I also have a vague impression that the Brits also were looking out for the Indians in many respects and seeking to make things better.  White man's burden sort of thing, I suppose.

This author makes a pretty compelling case that his viewpoint is more accurate (Brit influence almost entirely negative).

A few thoughts:

1.  Author makes interesting comparisons between India and England at the time of England's entry into east India - including India's relative economic strength, its long history compared to England's - and then offers comparisons between the two as a couple centuries roll by - with England consistently drawing off resources and interfering with whatever might have been the ordinary course of Indian economic development.  I don't know if the author's data is accurate or useful, but it's thought-provoking for sure.  Of course we don't exactly know how India would have developed with less or no interference - but its performance in the 21st century suggests it would have worked its way forward just fine.

2.  India paying for its own exploitation - essentially billed for all costs of running the country, etc.

3.  So many Englishmen making their fortunes in India.  This seems telling.

4.  Especially after the 1857 rising (or mutiny, as Brits would call it) - divide and conquer became a more conscious policy - emphasizing differences especially as between Hindu and Muslim (but also Sikh etc.).  Of course there were plenty of divisions independent of the Brit influence (including caste), but it's hard to believe that the situation wasn't antagonized; let alone the uncontrollable run-up that led to the Partition.

5.  Terrible famines.  Though not since Brits left.

6.  Brit's widespread presence and control not the result of a long-term strategic plan.  A business sets about making profit in a risky new market in 18th century, and learns how to take control of territories in support of the business plan.  Then the perimeter of the territory needs to be controlled, as well as the perimeter of the perimeter - the usual expansion rationale.  Then the crown takes over from the business after 1857.  One thing leads to the next in terms of territorial control, economic measures, etc.

7.  Assuming Brit influence was consistently malign - why didn't India rise up?  I think the explanation I usually see makes sense - that the Brits could tip the balance in various power struggles at the early stages and then - once in place - pick off control of additional states/territories by essentially cutting deals with the leadership.  Author argues this was pretty lucrative for the Brits and for the compliant local leaders, pretty negative for everyone else.

[Interesting that places like Peru and Mexico had similar experiences - an opening appears when the ruling party in disarray, rivals are rising, and a small force with advanced weaponry - and yes, no small measure of courage and/or greed - can then tip the balance and obtain outsized influence.]

Interesting throughout.  The author doesn't duck a fundamental question - the "so what" - even if Brit influence was deeply negative, India has been independent since 1947 and has adopted plenty of not-optimal policies in its own right - why burn energy looking back?  I think the usual answer applies - foundation myths are powerful in any country, and must be viewed critically if/as countries seek to move forward.